Why People Hate Fox News the Most?

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
Do people attack the News Network just because its conservative?

I make it a rule to simply not trust any MSM. I check as much information as I can from all sources, work out what a specific broadcaster ISN'T
telling me, check reports from people actually on the ground, real journalists with some integrity, people who have experienced whatever it is...

I criticize Fox because it is as biased as can be. Real news broadcasters don't shout at you and tell you what to believe, they present facts and
allow the audience to make up it's own mind. Fox attempts to scream at everyone until they believe their biased opinion.

Fox is not a credible news source, this has been proven time and time again. It makes no difference to me if it's conservative or not - the fact that
they are biased to one political sphere is enough to destroy any and all credibility in everything they say.

Also, it's owned by Murdoch's corporation - need I say more?

Your kinda proving the OP's point here. explain to me how fox news is any less of a credible news source than anyone else. oh and its not Rupert
Murdoch people need to worry about, its James... completely different agendas here, just go and look at his moves.

Some of us are also sick of the general hate and animosity that spawns in the muddy waters of fox news, blah!
Do you think the left is the only group that are "political pawns shouting for their ideological side.?" See how crazy it all is? Life is not
black and white, so neither should our perspectives in such an absolute fashion.

Have you ever thought that you hate people on the right and "conservatives", because all the mass media does is demonize them? For whatever reason,
you're so deluded you think it's not black and white when you generalize and spread hate. It's a mental condition I see often in liberals.

Is it 'democratic' policy or just striving for equality, a full picture, ALL the facts and real fairness?

This is your problem. You have such a narrow view of things that you think your position and the position of all liberals is by default, all these
things you listed. They're not. That's just your narcissism.

Remember Jonathan Krohn, the sign language-speaking ape Tween Conservative Pundit? He's 14 now, and still a sad, creepy spectacle. But
he's a sad creepy spectacle who is set on going to Princeton!

IvyGate flags a typically sad interview with Krohn and his stage mom at The Brownington Post. Krohn, who "wrote" a book called Defining Conservativism
(he "wrote" it in three months and Krohn is "now one of the top five bestselling conservative authors in the country, according to Amazon.com," in
case you're curious about just how much of a transparent farce the entire conservative publishing racket is), has his heart set on attending the New
Jersiest of the Ivies. There is apparently some sort of famous conservative gay-hating professor there, or something. But let's hope that Krohn isn't
exposed to all the elitist liberal academics there, like Cornell West! And Paul Krugman! And Dr. House! (No, but seriously—you'll fit in fine at
Princeton, Krohn!)

You see, when he's a conservative, the media rips him. When he's liberal, they applaud him. That's how the MSM conditions people. It's why
conservative women are constantly attacked and smeared. It's why you cant turn on TV on any given day without finding some kind of demonetization of
non-left wingers going on.

Look at what this kid said in another interview:

"It makes me feel like I'm awkward, but I'm not awkward. I'm not weird," Jonathan says. "Then, people on the left say"-here he changes his
voice to that of a Muppet-"‘He's not a prodigy. He's a weirdo, and I think he should be put in child protective services.'"

So chances are he's now a liberal to avoid being attacked as "creepy and weird" by his peers. I mean, look how a so called journalist openly treats a
little kid who doesnt agree with her point of view:

Maybe because they are over the top, in your face with the message they want to transmit and shows like the no spin zone were on Fox. Fox is the
pinnacle of a journalist world that rather than to inform the public, obfuscates where it is told to obfuscate, attempts to try to build opinion
rather than to merely inform the public, punishes investigative journalism instead of rewarding it.

It isnt just Fox, with the major media outlets controlled by just a handful of people, who in turn either serve their own interest or the interest of
their friends, many people realize that the traditional media are no longer the fifth power they used to be. Fox is not being very subtle about it and
therefore its a hot button for many people.

"Notoriously biased", huh? Interesting. Especially since Google doesn't actually produce any news whatsoever and merely links to other news
sources based upon the popularity and relevance as determined by the PageRank algorithm and it's various child algorithms.

...and in other news it has been discovered that the Encyclopedia AND the Dictionary are also notoriously biased as they both seem to quite frequently
favor the letter "A" over the letter "Z". In fact, this slant is so extreme it runs throughout virtually every single volume of both common
reference sources. At this time experts are still seeking confirmation as to whether or not the Thesaurus and Dewey Decimal System are conspiring
along with the Encyclopedia and Dictionary with the intent of duplicating this ordinal and mathematically determined system for organizing
information.

Originally posted by 11235813213455
Liberals have pretty much all other news outlets that match them ideologically and they have a problem with one lone conservative voice.

You still believe that "liberals" and "conservatives" exist in nature? Weird.

We currently have a "liberal" president who is implementing a massive surveillance apparatus for no apparent reason and who seems equally eager to
torture Guantanamo detainees and declare unconstitutional wars as the Bush/Cheney administration. Meanwhile, the "conservative" party has a
candidate who quite literally invented Obama's "socialized" medicine.

I would suggest that it's more rational to acknowledge that while all of us peasants have been bickering like children over the mythological utopian
ideals of "liberalism" and "conservativism" the politicians and corporations have slowly been implementing the very real FASCISM into American
life.

"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power."
-Benito Mussolini, Inventor of Fascism and ally of Adolf Hitler.

"Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity, quite apart from political considerations of the moment,
believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace."
-Benito Mussolini, Inventor of Fascism and ally of Adolf Hitler.

"Let us have a dagger between our teeth, a bomb in our hands, and an infinite scorn in our hearts."
-Benito Mussolini, Inventor of Fascism and ally of Adolf Hitler.

"We become strong, I feel, when we have no friends upon whom to lean, or to look to for moral guidance."
-Benito Mussolini, Inventor of Fascism and ally of Adolf Hitler.

Trust NO msm outlet. They are all sold-out and in cahoots.
They are the enemy. They are liars and deceivers and are responsible for
pulling the wool over the eyes of billions of decent people worldwide.

They are a vital cog in the mechanisms of the cabal. Without their cooperation,
all their outrageous and hideous schemes would have been impossible.

The last 100 years (since 1913?) have been utterly hideous and equally outrageous.

Once the media as a whole are exposed for what they are, all their towers comes tumbling down.

Beware of many alternative media outlets also. The cabals pockets run deep.

Conservatism and liberalism are 2 very real things. But you have to consider them from a current perspective or topic. You have to ask what are you
trying to conserve and what are you trying to liberate your self from.

From the perspective of the news media there is really only one voice that seems to want to conserve the intent of the constitution and all others
.... well.... there theyre all a little too hopey changey for my taste. Sure from time to time they have scattered showers of journalism and I
commend that but for he most part I consider them state run media that are trying to liberate the federal government from the constraints of the
constitution.

Originally posted by Cassius666
and therefore its a hot button for many people.

It's a hot button for liberals who can't stand points of view outside their bubble.

"Bubble", huh? As one of those highly coveted "swing voters" and a certified member of the endangered species known as "moderates" I would
assert the following:

1. Any "news" channel who routinely takes one of it's more popular "voices" and dresses them up in Adolf Hitler costumes and instructs them to
use cheap props like a chalkboard filled with over-simplified nonsense doesn't really have a "viewpoint" per se. Rather, they are to
"journalism" what Carrot Top is to "comedy".

2. If another one of your most popular "journalists" is widely known to simply yell, scream, interrupt, and drown out his "guests" who have a
different opinion...you don't really have the right to refer to yourself as a "news" channel.

3. There is a serious problem with any channel which features Ann Coulter telling the masses that radioactive fallout from a nuclear meltdown might
provide "health benefits" because radiation is "all natural" and then proceeds to invite that same Ann Coulter BACK onto to the station to share
her "viewpoints" on other matters in a serious fashion is really nothing other than a bad joke being played on idiots.

I mean...if radioactive fallout is so damn "natural" and "healthy"...why are the Republicans (in particular) so bent out of shape about a nuclear
Iran? Maybe Ahmidinejad just wants to share his homeopathic remedies with us...right?

Yes...the "liberal" media outlets are quite frequently guilty of bought-and-paid-for shilling. However, the depths of Fox's endemic idiocy truly
makes one stand in awe. It's not so much the fact that they are arguing a "conservative" argument...it's the just plain DUMB rationale they use
to "justify" it. The thought process is just as important as the conclusions themselves.

For example, I believe it's perfectly reasonable to assert that we should cut governmental spending and taxes. However...the idea that taxation is
somehow inherently evil and that the wealthy "don't receive anything for their tax dollars" is simply untrue. What they receive is a first world
country they can live in which doesn't have things like coastal piracy, roving bands of starving refugees, and remarkably less cholera in the water
supply than the Third World.

Even though the conclusion that the government is taxing people too much and should stop wasting money is the same there is a VAST difference in the
path that one takes using the "taxes are inherently evil" mentality. One manner of thinking leads an individual to pursue policies of open
government to hold elected representatives and bureaucrats responsible for their spending. The other manner results in wild and poorly planned
knee-jerk reactionism like the recent effort in North Dakota to "abolish" property taxes overnight.

Granted...I don't think that an individual should be able to lose their home simply because they didn't pay the government their "protection"
money...but only a damn fool thinks you can just go ahead and do this overnight. Without property taxes there aren't any:

Something tells me that people would get mighty upset in a hurry when they had a car accident because every intersection in town spontaneously became
"uncontrolled" (no matter how much traffic it received) and nobody's insurance company was willing to pay because there was no police officer to
file a report....and no court to take the insurance company to either.

Meanwhile, even as the public clamored for change they would find themselves petitioning the various local warlords who have taken over for the
Governor since the state stopped paying him and since there are no longer any elected representatives of any kind at the state level. All while being
able to enjoy the smell of the rotting corpse of the homeless guy who died on the park bench last week which nobody came to remove and bury.

You see...extremist lunacy is dangerous enough without ALSO adding to it sh^tty critical thinking skills.

Never said I did...what's your point? I find it amazing that anybody in 2012 can think that political beliefs are dictated by an imaginary
right-left paradigm.

From the perspective of the news media there is really only one voice that seems to want to conserve the intent of the constitution and all others
.... well.... there theyre all a little too hopey changey for my taste.

Really? What news channel is that? I'd love to watch it sometime. I'm a big Ron Paul supporter...but I can't help but notice that Fox News had a
virtual blackout on the Paul campaign and threw their weight behind Romney early in the game. Meanwhile Rachel Maddow (of all people) has typically
been one of Ron Paul's STRONGEST MSM allies and recently wrote a book entitled "Drift" which details HOW THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT HAS "DRIFTED"
AWAY FROM IT'S CONSTITUTIONAL CORE BELIEFS.

If you think Fox News is all for preserving the Constitution you are utterly delusional. There is NO MEDIA OUTLET IN EXISTENCE which is "for" the
Constitution. Granted...there may be a single reporter or personality here or there that is...but thinking that "Fox News" is taking this
standpoint is as crazy as thinking MSNBC (as a whole) takes this standpoint.

Right vs. Left is DEAD. It's just one big Fascist State vs. The Peasants.

Ok.. I just read this whole thing and its very clear that people who are liberals completely hate Fox News just because they are Conservative and try
to find any reason to hate them. Of course they do things to piss you off. Your a liberal. Of course your going to think someone wearing a costume
is ridiculous. Its because they didn't say what you wanted them to say. Its funny though that the same people watching a liberal station where
someone may dress up another way that suites their agenda is just fine. And its ok because they did it to prove a liberal point. Right? Its
hilarious. I watch Fox News some and I usually check their website a couple of times a day. I also look at my local news stations and news papers to
see what is going on. And I check sites like this. But you know what I dont watch? CNN or MSNBC. I may jump over from time to time to see what
garbage they are putting on but you know what? I am smart enough to know that I dont like those sites because I am a conservative and they are
pushing an agenda just like Fox is.

The whole point of the OP is, why is Fox news so much worse than all of the others who are absolutely doing the same things and are just as far
slanted towards their agenda as Fox is its agenda? And before we get the same replys. Yes I know fox has been taken to court. But do you think that
the liberal media and liberal judges are going to go after the liberal media for their missteps? Doubtful. You dont bite the hand that feeds you.
But you would surely want to find that loud ass cricket (fox) in the room and smash it wouldn't you?

Don't you guys realize that Democrat and Republican, as far as parties go, change completely in cycles?
Seriously, they really do. Think about it....

Jackson was the first to be called a "Democrat", before that, it was "Democratic-Republican" for the party name.
Then the "Whig" party popped up with Harrison (William Henry) and the "Democrats" of that time started going more toward what we see as the
"right wing".

There was turmoil between the Democrats and the Whigs for a while, then along came Lincoln and called himself a "Republican" which would be
considered very left wing in today's world. It went around and around, Grant, Hayes, Garfield and Arthur... Then there was the period of time with
the other Harrison and Cleveland and they Democrats and Republicans lined up more with what we think of them today (or at least what we thought of
them 15 years ago...). There were good ones and bad ones on both side, but they stabalized.

Now we have Obama and Romney and they're starting to cycle again. My own opinion is that bush was too extremist that it prompted another cycle
change. Obama and Romney are both pretty "centrist" in the grand scheme of things but I see Obama as more conservative than Romney and Romney more
liberal even though they stick hard to their parties.

It's flipping again, right here and right now. There are overlaps and nuances going on, but the Republican party is soon to become more of the
"liberal" sense and the Democrat party is going to become more of the "conservative" sense within the next 10 years. Right now, they're about the
same other than people sticking to the name.

The tea party has a lot to do with the change too, they started out as neither liberal or conservative and drew in people who were looking for
something else. The extremist right wing quickly jumped in and changed them into an ultra-conservative group and that's what will make them blink out
of existance. We're in a "centrist mode" not an extremist one and the tea party is going to trigger the cycle change then it will disappear like
other pop up parties have done.

Not sure which group will keep which name, but the ideologies are definiting swaying. I guess it depend on who wins the election what will happen.

In my opinion and opinion alone, I'd say that if Obama wins, he's going to head more toward the right wing and the ideologies are going to flip. The
Democrats will be more pro-war and less human rights and the Republicans will completely eject the tea party and be more liberal in human rights, look
for peaceful solutions and basically just oppose whatever Obama is doing.

If Romney wins, the tea party and fox news and the extremist right groups are going to abandon the Republican base and concentrate redefine themselves
as some new party name pretty much ejecting Romney and his group of supporters. With Romney as President, they'll change the name of their "party"
and a lot of the Democrats that are pro-Obama will join them.

If they choose to hold on to the names "Democrat" and "Republican", they'll be pretty much opposite what they are now and a lot of people will be
"In name only" (very centrist groups) ... we've seen those numbers climbing anyway. The Republican party now is pretty much the "Southern
Democrats" from 75 years ago, especially the more extreme right wing.

I could be wrong and completely off base, but that's my opinion for now. It's happened before and has been a while, It almost happened again between
the Nixon and Reagan years....could have just been the buildup I guess, but was cut off short with Clinton so Bush was pretty much the catalyst that
started it again.

Like I said, I could be wrong, it's just a theory in the stage of development and subject to change.

I don't know if you do this on purpose, if you have an "agenda", or what your angle is, but you are by far the trollingest troll I've ever come
across in all of troll-land. You trolled about Romney, and now about Fox "News". The only way you can top your latest acts will be by presenting a
defense pro-NDAA (which Rom would clearly not veto), Fluoride, drones on American soil, and, hell how about Monsanto for kicks while I'm thinking
about it..

Seriously man, you read like a textbook of disinformation and diffusion, and then you retort to posters as if you've been "Honest Washington" all
along and you're doing no wrong and simply cannot be wrong. Most of us realize what you are doing, but the unfortunate few that do not, well...I
feel sorry for them and in part for you.

Now then, this is quite on-topic so pay attention, as this is insider information, something I've attempted to let you in on before but you ignored
because it wasn't in line with your views:

Before working at Fox my wife worked at Channel 10 PBS. She fell in love with journalism there, and in fact served as a high-school intern first for
a whole year before taking a part-time, then a full-time job there. Their ethics were sound, their news truly fair and balanced, and the attitude in
general was not of a pyramidal hierarchy but more of a family unit with shared responsibilities. It was only when an opportunity came to "move up"
potentially to being a news journalist herself or even perhaps on the path toward anchor that she transferred to Fox.

The station compartmentalizes everything, and a hierarchy exists where if you're not on a need-to-know basis, you simply are not told. But as she
moved through the station positions (occasionally to fill in when she wasn't on a camera), she quickly caught on to the slant and how it occurs. You
see its not just what they say or don't say....or should I maybe say what they are TOLD to say or not say, per Corporate.

When Fox Corporate sends down a fax (well, email now but years ago it was diff) from the head office to the stations, this give the station director
the topic to spin and how. Messing with chroma-key, the audio output of the opposition, and of course the "fair and balanced" news anchors and
reporters are told to interrupt, distract, and diffuse issues brought up by the opposition, aka "guests" to the show. My wife quit when she became
aware that this happens on a personal level.

Fox soured the whole life pursuit of being a journalist for her. It woke her up, viscerally. She eventually came to work with me where she wasn't
treated like the bottom rung on a ladder, and she doesn't have to follow orders that conflict with her internal compass, if you get what I'm
saying.

With the exception of Ben Swann and his excellent "Reality Check" series on Fox station 19 WXIX in Ohio (which is a non-Corporate owned or
controlled station I understand), I simply cannot stand listening to Fox "News" for any length of time, and believe me I've tried before. The BS
meter in my mind just pegs red like a poorly cooled engine, and rather than blow a headgasket I just shut off the damn tv, or leave the room.

You see, the awake cannot stand to be spoonfed BS. We know what it is, and we can't stomach it.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.